June Ensign - Life After Death

[Jeanne]

Smac..thank you for you reply.  I know you take a lot of time an effort on my behalf and I appreciate it.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, it's not good parenting if the consequences are eternal. For the same reason it wouldn't be good parenting to allow a child to die of his injuries as a consequence for failing to exercise proper caution.

"He chose to ride his bike without a help. He condemned himself."

It's tricky though working out expectations for God. We know what a good parent is in the 21st century. That's not the same thing as what people though of as a good parent 500 years ago. God's parenting style always seems to get updated to fit the times. But how could it not? A personal God has to be relatable and admirable.

We aren't talking about a child injuring themselves by falling off a bike.
We are talking sin - the breaking of a law (or the refusal to follow a law).

A good parent helps a hurt child.  But a willfully disobedient child suffers the consequences.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, it's not good parenting if the consequences are eternal. For the same reason it wouldn't be good parenting to allow a child to die of his injuries as a consequence for failing to exercise proper caution. 

"He chose to ride his bike without a help. He condemned himself." 

It's tricky though working out expectations for God. We know what a good parent is in the 21st century. That's not the same thing as what people though of as a good parent 500 years ago. God's parenting style always seems to get updated to fit the times. But how could it not? A personal God has to be relatable and admirable. 

Imagine the following discussion:

• Teenage Son: "Mom, I just finished binge-watching 'Endeavour' and 'Inspector Lewis' on Amazon Prime.  These are British TV series set in Oxford.  I like the idea of going to Oxford University, so I think I'll go there after I graduate."
• Mom: "Well, okay.  Oxford is a well-known and prestigious school, so you'll have to work hard to do that."
• TS: "No, I won't.  And you're a bad parent for telling me that."
• Mom: "What?  No, no.  You misunderstand.  I love you and want you to succeed.  If you really want to attend Oxford, I will support you in that."
• TS: "Well, good."
• Mom: "And I can support you by helping you understand what you need to do in order to be admitted there."
• TS: "Nope.  Bad parenting again, Mom.  I want to get into Oxford.  Me wanting it is enough.  You are failing at being my parent if you tell me otherwise."
• Mom: "Son, it's not bad parenting to tell you the truth.  Oxford has requirements for admission . . ."
• TS: "You're a bad parent, Mom."
• Mom: "... like a minimum score of 2,100 on the SAT . . ."
• TS: "Bad parent."
• Mom: "...  including at least 1,400 in Critical Reading and Mathematics and also 700 or more in Writing ..."
• TS: "Bad parent."

It's not a perfect analogy, of course.  Admission to Oxford is necessarily limited to only a portion of a very large pool of applicants, and it also has some arbitrary elements to it.  In contrast, the Celestial Kingdom is available to all who want it.

As imperfect and flawed and blinkered human beings, it is unfortunately easy to glibly blaspheme by accusing God of being a bad parent.  To do so is to misunderstand and misconstrue and misrepresent the nature and character of God, as well as His plan for us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We aren't talking about a child injuring themselves by falling off a bike.
We are talking sin - the breaking of a law (or the refusal to follow a law).

A good parent helps a hurt child.  But a willfully disobedient child suffers the consequences.

 

"Johnny, you were disobedient and didn't wear a helmet. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you die."
 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine the following discussion:

• Teenage Son: "Mom, I just finished binge-watching 'Endeavour' and 'Inspector Lewis' on Amazon Prime.  These are British TV series set in Oxford.  I like the idea of going to Oxford University, so I think I'll go there after I graduate."
• Mom: "Well, okay.  Oxford is a well-known and prestigious school, so you'll have to work hard to do that."
• TS: "No, I won't.  And you're a bad parent for telling me that."
• Mom: "What?  No, no.  You misunderstand.  I love you and want you to succeed.  If you really want to attend Oxford, I will support you in that."
• TS: "Well, good."
• Mom: "And I can support you by helping you understand what you need to do in order to be admitted there."
• TS: "Nope.  Bad parenting again, Mom.  I want to get into Oxford.  Me wanting it is enough.  You are failing at being my parent if you tell me otherwise."
• Mom: "Son, it's not bad parenting to tell you the truth.  Oxford has requirements for admission . . ."
• TS: "You're a bad parent, Mom."
• Mom: "... like a minimum score of 2,100 on the SAT . . ."
• TS: "Bad parent."
• Mom: "...  including at least 1,400 in Critical Reading and Mathematics and also 700 or more in Writing ..."
• TS: "Bad parent."

It's not a perfect analogy, of course.  Admission to Oxford is necessarily limited to only a portion of a very large pool of applicants, and it also has some arbitrary elements to it.  In contrast, the Celestial Kingdom is available to all who want it.

As imperfect and flawed and blinkered human beings, it is unfortunately easy to glibly blaspheme by accusing God of being a bad parent.  To do so is to misunderstand and misconstrue and misrepresent the nature and character of God, as well as His plan for us.

Thanks,

-Smac

More like:

Teenage Son: Mom, I want some rewards, but I'm unwilling to put in the work.

Mom: Well then, I suppose we'll have to disown you.

 

Remember, we're talking eternal consequences for non-eternal mistakes. 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

"Johnny, you were disobedient and didn't wear a helmet. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you die."
 

Nah.  God only lets perdition die.

It's more a case of "You refused to do the homework and failed the exams for 10th grade, now I am unable to allow you to move on to 11th grade with the rest of your class.  You will need to be held back in the remedial class.  You simply chose not to prepare for the 11th grade and could not handle it if you did advance."

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

More like:

Teenage Son: Mom, I want some rewards, but I'm unwilling to put in the work.

Mom: Well then, I suppose we'll have to disown you.

 

Remember, we're talking eternal consequences for non-eternal mistakes. 

 

Only if disowning = Outer Darkness.

But then, that would be a patent misrepresentation of the Restored Gospel, and a facile and unfair characterization of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nah.  God only lets perdition die.

It's more a case of "You refused to do the homework and failed the exams for 10th grade, now I am unable to allow you to move on to 11th grade with the rest of your class.  You will need to be held back in the remedial class.  You simply chose not to prepare for the 11th grade and could not handle it if you did advance."

Isn't separation from God spiritual death?

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only if disowning = Outer Darkness.

But then, that would be a patent misrepresentation of the Restored Gospel, and a facile and unfair characterization of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I understand it, only those in the celestial kingdom have access to Heavenly Father. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Isn't separation from God spiritual death?

Not if a new God is placed over you.  In the case of the Terrestrial, Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Bluebell said:

Quote

Rewarding a child for disobedience is not a definition of "good parent" that I'm familiar with.

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Condemning a child for eternally for disobedience is also not a definition of a "good parent" that I'm familiar with 

Uh, I think there is a gap there.  Time out is not eternal condemnation.

Just a thought - of course I could be wrong.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not if a new God is placed over you.  In the case of the Terrestrial, Jesus Christ.

Your personal opinion, right?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/death-spiritual?lang=eng

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Bluebell said:

 

Uh, I think there is a gap there.  Time out is not eternal condemnation.

Just a thought - of course I could be wrong.

Well, the currently favored idea about the afterlife is there is no progression between kingdoms. However if it turned out there were progression between kingdoms, then eternal condemnation would not exist for most people. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your personal opinion, right?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/death-spiritual?lang=eng

No.

1. A function of law, not condemnation:
D&C 88:21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
36 All kingdoms have a law given;

We are talking natural consequences here, not punishment.  A Terrestrial being cannot be in a Celestial environment anymore than an elephant could survive on the bottom of the ocean.  God doesn't place them there to punish them.  That is simply the kind of beings they are.  If ANYONE want to go to the Celestial Kingdom they have to be Celestial beings living Celestial laws.  That's all.
 

2. Not given up on, but a new ruler ministers to them
D&C 76:73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.
75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.
77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your personal opinion, right?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/death-spiritual?lang=eng

I think he is referring to D&C 76:77 (speaking of the inhabitants of the Terrestrial Kingdom): "These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."

Regarding the lowest kigdom, the Telestial Kingdom, we are told in D&C 76:89 that its glory "surpasses all understanding," and in verse 86 that its inhabitants "receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial."  

Even the lowest kingdom of glory is a place of happiness beyond our ability to comprehend, and yet you persist in trying to depict God as a terrible parent.  Odd, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 6, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Condemning a child for eternally for disobedience is also not a definition of a "good parent" that I'm familiar with 

A fuller understanding of the Gospel allows for such: As He said Himself, good parent brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children (and notice how well He models good parenting of His son Moses in Moses Chapter 1). A mortal parent does this by abiding by the principles taught in The Family: A Proclamation. Our Eternal Parent additionally does this by sending us His Son, whose Atonement perfectly bridges Mercy and Justice, Charity and Agency, and all the things a good parent teaches and executes according to eternal law.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.

1. A function of law, not condemnation:
D&C 88:21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
36 All kingdoms have a law given;

We are talking natural consequences here, not punishment.  A Terrestrial being cannot be in a Celestial environment anymore than an elephant could survive on the bottom of the ocean.  God doesn't place them there to punish them.  That is simply the kind of beings they are.  If ANYONE want to go to the Celestial Kingdom they have to be Celestial beings living Celestial laws.  That's all.
 

2. Not given up on, but a new ruler ministers to them
D&C 76:73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.
75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.
77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

The subject was spiritual death, though, right? 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/12.16%2C32?lang=eng#15

The church teaches that spiritual death is separation from God. This gets emphasized in missionary discussions, or it used to at least. 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think he is referring to D&C 76:77 (speaking of the inhabitants of the Terrestrial Kingdom): "These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."

Regarding the lowest kigdom, the Telestial Kingdom, we are told in D&C 76:89 that its glory "surpasses all understanding," and in verse 86 that its inhabitants "receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial."  

Even the lowest kingdom of glory is a place of happiness beyond our ability to comprehend, and yet you persist in trying to depict God as a terrible parent.  Odd, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think God is a terrible parent at all. But if we're comparing God to a human parent, then it would follow that, comparing LDS doctrines with most people's idea of good parenting God is a bad or at least flawed parent, yes. The mainstream Christian God is an even worse one. That's one of the problems of the anthropomorphic God idea. You have to keep updating God to match improved ideas about parenting. 

No matter how nice the Telestial Kingdom might be, it's still eternal spiritual death, right?

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think God is a terrible parent at all.

You analyzed / analogized God's treatment of His children as follows:

• "Condemning a child for eternally for disobedience is also not a definition of a 'good parent' that I'm familiar with."
• "No, it's not good parenting if the consequences are eternal. For the same reason it wouldn't be good parenting to allow a child to die of his injuries as a consequence for failing to exercise proper caution."
• "'Johnny, you were disobedient and didn't wear a helmet. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you die.'"
• "Teenage Son: 'Mom, I want some rewards, but I'm unwilling to put in the work.' / Mom: 'Well then, I suppose we'll have to disown you.'"

These sound quite a bit like you are characterizing God as a terrible parent.  I don't know how else we are supposed to construe your comments.

Quote

But if we're comparing God to a human parent, then it would follow that, comparing LDS doctrines with most people's idea of good parenting God is a bad or at least flawed parent, yes.

Ah.  So you are not saying that you believe that God is a terrible parent, but that Latter-day Saints believe and teach that He is a terrible parent.

Is that it?

Quote

The mainstream Christian God is an even worse one. That's one of the problems of the anthropomorphic God idea. You have to keep updating God to match improved ideas about parenting. 

Our "ideas about parenting" vis-à-vis our Heavently Father come principally from scriptures revealed through Joseph Smith and other prophets.

We have always posited that God is perfect and loving and just.  How that plays out in human perceptions of the topic is an interesting phenomenon.  But I'm not sure all our contemporary notions about parenting are aptly described as "improved ideas."  Some, yes, but not all.

Quote

No matter how nice the Telestial Kingdom might be, it's still eternal spiritual death, right?

I think the only people who experience "eternal spiritual death" are those in Outer Darkness.  Those of the Terrestrial Kingdom receive "receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father" (D&C 76:77), and those in the Telestial Kingdom "receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial."

You seem bound and determined to paint the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs in the worst possible light, and their depiction of God as His being a terrible parent.  I think this is inaccurate and unfortunate.  The LDS teachings about the Three Degrees of Glory are, in my view, full of hope and joy and comfort and optimism.  And yet you read the same things I do and come away with the notion that God is a malevolent, vindictive, arbitrary, vicious parent.  With respect, I do not think that is a fair characterization of our beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You analyzed / analogized God's treatment of His children as follows:

• "Condemning a child for eternally for disobedience is also not a definition of a 'good parent' that I'm familiar with."
• "No, it's not good parenting if the consequences are eternal. For the same reason it wouldn't be good parenting to allow a child to die of his injuries as a consequence for failing to exercise proper caution."
• "'Johnny, you were disobedient and didn't wear a helmet. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you die.'"
• "Teenage Son: 'Mom, I want some rewards, but I'm unwilling to put in the work.' / Mom: 'Well then, I suppose we'll have to disown you.'"

These sound quite a bit like you are characterizing God as a terrible parent.  I don't know how else we are supposed to construe your comments.

Ah.  So you are not saying that you believe that God is a terrible parent, but that Latter-day Saints believe and teach that He is a terrible parent.

Is that it?

Orthodox LDS wouldn't characterize God as a terrible parent. But if we compare what most people would think of as Good parenting with some of the aspects of the plan of salvation, God doesn't look like a good parent. The parenting style might be good by the standards of other cultures or even other species, but not 21st century western homo sapiens. That's the danger in taking this parent metaphor too far.

 

Quote

Our "ideas about parenting" vis-à-vis our Heavently Father come principally from scriptures revealed through Joseph Smith and other prophets.

There isn't a great deal in the scriptures about parenting. Some of them advocate for beating children, others for giving children everything they ask for.

But quite a lot of what is taught in the church as good parenting behaviors it seems to be based on evolving cultural attitudes. A more tender and nurturing approach to parenting is recommended to us and attributed to God than what might have been envisioned in centuries past.  

 

Quote

We have always posited that God is perfect and loving and just.  How that plays out in human perceptions of the topic is an interesting phenomenon.  But I'm not sure all our contemporary notions about parenting are aptly described as "improved ideas."  Some, yes, but not all.

It's subjective, certainly, but I think the trajectory is overall positive.

 

Quote

I think the only people who experience "eternal spiritual death" are those in Outer Darkness.  

That's not what the church teaches. I suppose you and I are both a bit unorthodox here. 

 

Quote

You seem bound and determined to paint the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs in the worst possible light,

That's not what I'm about at all. I'm simply comparing what I understand to be good parenting with aspects of the plan of salvation that don't match up with good parenting. It's a mental exercise only. 

By the standards of a sea turtle, it's probably very good parenting. But by normative standards of parenting for most of us? No, it's not.

 

Quote

and their depiction of God as His being a terrible parent.  I think this is inaccurate and unfortunate.  The LDS teachings about the Three Degrees of Glory are, in my view, full of hope and joy and comfort and optimism.  And yet you read the same things I do and come away with the notion that God is a malevolent, vindictive, arbitrary, vicious parent.  With respect, I do not think that is a fair characterization of our beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's an improved model over the mainstream Christian heaven/hell model, but still not up to the standards of good parenting that most of us would recognize. The metaphor of God as our parent, as I said before, is limited, and it doesn't work if you take it too far. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Well, the currently favored idea about the afterlife is there is no progression between kingdoms. However if it turned out there were progression between kingdoms, then eternal condemnation would not exist for most people. 

Well even not knowing the explanation of the "logic" of that, the problem is that the gospel is about love and mercy and God judging each individual according to their abilities and circumstances, 

BUT

Please tell me the logic behind that.  Notice also that the IF there is, as you put it, not the "favored idea".  I personally have not read threads talking about progression between kingdoms because I personally believe that God does not make mistakes, and I think we have to postulate that as part of a definition of any possible definition of "God"- if He made a mistake he would cease to be who he is.

BUT

What is the logic of that??

Edit: FYI, I believe in virtually universal "salvation" under the definition that the telestial kingdom is included in the definition of "salvation", since it is not "condemnation"

Edited June 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Orthodox LDS wouldn't characterize God as a terrible parent. But if we compare what most people would think of as Good parenting with some of the aspects of the plan of salvation, God doesn't look like a good parent. The parenting style might be good by the standards of other cultures or even other species, but not 21st century western homo sapiens. That's the danger in taking this parent metaphor too far.

 

There isn't a great deal in the scriptures about parenting. Some of them advocate for beating children, others for giving children everything they ask for.

But quite a lot of what is taught in the church as good parenting behaviors it seems to be based on evolving cultural attitudes. A more tender and nurturing approach to parenting is recommended to us and attributed to God than what might have been envisioned in centuries past.  

 

It's subjective, certainly, but I think the trajectory is overall positive.

 

That's not what the church teaches. I suppose you and I are both a bit unorthodox here. 

 

That's not what I'm about at all. I'm simply comparing what I understand to be good parenting with aspects of the plan of salvation that don't match up with good parenting. It's a mental exercise only. 

By the standards of a sea turtle, it's probably very good parenting. But by normative standards of parenting for most of us? No, it's not.

 

It's an improved model over the mainstream Christian heaven/hell model, but still not up to the standards of good parenting that most of us would recognize. The metaphor of God as our parent, as I said before, is limited, and it doesn't work if you take it too far. 

So your criticism centers on the defects in and limitations on the metaphor, rather than on the substance of the underlying doctrines/beliefs.  Is that correct?

Just trying to sort this out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

More like:

Teenage Son: Mom, I want some rewards, but I'm unwilling to put in the work.

Mom: Well then, I suppose we'll have to disown you.

 

Remember, we're talking eternal consequences for non-eternal mistakes. 

 

Those who fall short of the Celestial Kingdom are not disowned.

Your analogy does not apply.

 

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well even not knowing the explanation of the "logic" of that, the problem is that the gospel is about love and mercy and God judging each individual according to their abilities and circumstances, 

BUT

Please tell me the logic behind that.  Notice also that the IF there is, as you put it, not the "favored idea".  I personally have not read threads talking about progression between kingdoms because I personally believe that God does not make mistakes, and I think we have to postulate that as part of a definition of any possible definition of "God"- if He made a mistake he would cease to be who he is.

BUT

What is the logic of that??

Edit: FYI, I believe in virtually universal "salvation" under the definition that the telestial kingdom is included in the definition of "salvation", since it is not "condemnation"

I would think that eternal separation from God would be a kind of eternal condemnation, no matter how nice a place you were residing in. It's referred to as "spiritual death" in our literature. That would be reserved for the denizens of the lower kingdoms. This is eternal condemnation as a result of finite mistakes, which seems unbalanced.

There has been some speculation of progression between kingdoms. If that were possible, then the problem of eternal condemnation would disappear. IMO, that doctrinal innovation, if it were also to include "outer darkness" would make the most logical sense to me, given what I would assume the goals of the plan of salvation are, and given my own ideas about parenthood.

Please understand that I'm approaching this as a thought experiment. I'm rolling it around on my tongue, like a piece of hard candy. I'm not suggesting that anything has to be one way or another. I have no idea if there is even consciousness after death.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So your criticism centers on the defects in and limitations on the metaphor, rather than on the substance of the underlying doctrines/beliefs.  Is that correct?

Just trying to sort this out.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure I'd put it exactly like that. I don't hold to a personal or human-like God, and I see the "fatherhood" of God as metaphorical. I realize it's not metaphorical in the minds of most members of the church. But when I think of what it means to be a good parent, I don't see that completely lining up with the behaviors normally attributed to God in mainstream LDS teachings. Part of that is because the ideal father is a construct that has changed over the years, and of course the attributes of God are constantly being redefined as well. No surprise then that the ideals of fatherhood and Godhood are not perfectly aligned. They are two moving targets that will continue to evolve over time. I suppose that's what I was trying to point out. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gray